Emmanuel Seyman wrote: >* Ron Yorston [13/02/2019 08:45] : >> If so, why would they do that? Why would they *not* want their package >> to be available as a regular package? It seems counterproductive for >> them to downgrade their package to this second-class status. > >The goal, IIUC (and I'm not at sure that I do), is to for each module to be >able to have its own lifecycle, seperate from the lifecycle of the >distribution. Sure, that's my (possibly faulty) understanding too. But it doesn't answer my question. Why would a maintainer drop support for the regular package after they've copied it into a module (or modules)? If, as Neal says, "module-only" packages can't be used as build dependencies for regular packages their package is now useless to any developer who isn't using modules. I'm not expecting an answer from Emmanuel. It would, though, be interesting to hear from the maintainers of the orphaned packages. Why? Why did you do that? Ron _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
